sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril of Anders-Christian Jacobsen

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–387 CE) was born probably in or near Jerusalem. Only little is known of Cyril’s life before he became bishop in Jerusalem. He began his ecclesiastical career as a in the congregation in Jerusalem sometime between 330 and 335 CE. Around 343 CE, he was appointed a presbyter by Bishop Maximus. And finally, he became bishop in 350 CE (Yarnold, 2000, 3–4; Nuffelen, 2007, 136, argues that Cyril was appointed bishop already in 348 CE). Cyril’s appointment as a bishop was not without complications as can be gathered from a few ancient authors: Rufinus of Aquileia (Hist. 10.24), (Chron. 348; Vir. ill. 112), (Hist. eccl. 4.20), and Socrates Scholasticus (Hist. eccl. 2.38; 2.40; 2.42; 2.45; 4.1; 5.3; 5.8; 7.7). These sources confirm that Cyril followed Maximus as bishop in Jerusalem, although the details are unclear. However, all authors indicate that there had been some kind of conflict about Cyril’s appointment. Jerome, Sozomen, and Socrates claim that Cyril was appointed bishop by Acacius, the metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine. Sozomen and Socrates both say that Acacius and another bishop, Patrophilius from , had ejected Maximus from the see of Jerusalem and then appointed Cyril. Jerome, who is the most explicit source, holds that Acacius together with other Arian bishops promised the bishopric of Jerusalem to Cyril on the condition that he renounced his ordination as presbyter by Maximus. According to Jerome, the conflict was over theology: Maximus belonged to the Nicene party, while Acacius was Arian. Jerome indicates that Cyril got his appointment as bishop over Jerusalem by changing sides from the Nicene party to the Arian. This is probably the reason why Rufinus says Nicenethat Cyril was vacillating with regard to belief and allegiance. Cyril’s texts, however, reveal no Arian leanings. Jerome further states that Maximus, before he died, appointed another presbyter, Heraclius, as bishop, but that Cyril managed to convince him to renounce the appointment and continue as presbyter. A.J. Doval (2001, 13–22) discusses these sources and how they have been interpreted by previous researchers. He concludes that the most likely scenario is that Acacius appointed Cyril bishop because he misjudged his theological standpoint and took Cyril to be Arian. According to A.J. Doval’s interpretation, Cyril’s appointment was not in conflict with the interests of the Jerusalem congregation. Soon after, Cyril took his own standpoint in matters of theology and administration, standpoints that clashed with the wishes of Acacius (Yarnold, 2000, 4–5). Consequently, a conflict over theology as well as administration broke out between Cyril and Acacius soon after his appointment as bishop. Now, Acacius found out that Cyril belonged to the Nicene party – the fraction that claimed that Christ was divine, but not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, but like (homoiousios) the Father in nature. Acacius also accused Cyril of having illegally sold church property in order to support poor members of the church during a famine. Acacius disposed of Cyril in 357 CE, and he went in exile in Tarsus until 359 CE, when the restored him to his see. However, in 360 CE Acacius managed to convince Emperor Constantius I that Cyril should be exiled, with the argument that Cyril had sold a that had given to the former bishop Macarius. Cyril was restored from this exile in 361 CE when Emperor called all exiled bishops back to their sees. However, the conflict with the in Caesarea continued. Acacius died around 365 CE, and Cyril interfered in the election of his successor and had his own brother, Gelasius, appointed. However, shortly after, Gelasius was dismissed and replaced with an Arian bishop, Euzoius. When (sympathizing with the Arians) became emperor in 367 CE, he reintroduced Constantius I’s restrictions against the Nicene bishops, and Cyril was therefore exiled for a third time (Yarnold, 2000, 5–7; Drijvers, 2004, 31–63. A different interpretation of Cyril’s career as bishop in Jerusalem is found in Nuffelen, 2007. He claims that there was a continuous dispute about ecclesiastical power in Jerusalem in the and 370s CE. Several bishops claimed power at the same time, and none of them were exiled. Thus, according to Nuffelen, Cyril was only exiled once, in the early stage of his career). This time, his exile lasted for 11 years until 378 CE, when a new emperor, Gratian, restored exiled bishops to their sees. After the third exile, Cyril remained bishop in Jerusalem until his death in 387 CE. In 381 CE, Cyril took part in the council in as one of the leaders of the Nicene party.

Cyril and Jerusalem

Cyril was probably born and grew up in or near Jerusalem. This can be assumed because he seems to have been familiar with the city and its development many years before he became bishop in the city (e.g. he seems to know what the place where the later Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built looked like before the church was built (see Cyr.Jer. Catech. 14.5; 14.9; Yarnold, 2000, 3). During Cyril’s time, Jerusalem became an important place of pilgrimage, undoubtedly in part due to Cyril’s influence. Emperor Constantine and his mother, Helena, had previously claimed to have identified some of the holy sites where important incidents in Jesus’ life took place, such as Golgotha, the Holy Sepulcher, the Garden of Gethsemane, and so on. Churches had then been built at these spots and had become famous sites of pilgrimage in Cyril’s time. The importance of Jerusalem was, however, not yet fully recognized with respect to political, ecclesiastical, and theological power. Cyril was fighting for such recognition of his city and his bishopric. In this struggle, which is expressed in his letter to Emperor Constantius and in his catechetical and mystagogical lectures, Cyril stresses the importance of Jerusalem as a holy space. In his Letter to Constantius, which can be dated to 351 CE, Cyril mentions how Constantius’ father Constantine discovered the wood of Jesus’ cross in Jerusalem together with some of the holy places. In Cyril’s mind, this is a sign that Constantine was blessed by God. But obviously, the mention of this fact is also a way for Cyril to stress the importance of Jerusalem – the city of which he himself was bishop. In Jerusalem, one finds the most important places related to Jesus’ life, according to Cyril. But the reason why Cyril writes to the emperor is not only to bring these holy places into remembrance; it is to tell him that the importance of these discoveries had been confirmed by a great wonder in his own time. On May 7, 351 CE, a huge cross was visible in the sky above Jerusalem. This luminous cross in the sky stretched its arms from Golgotha to the Mount of Olives, thus connecting the two most holy places in Jerusalem – the place where Jesus died and rose again, and the place from which he ascended to heaven. This luminous cross was seen not only by Cyril himself, but by all citizens of Jerusalem, Christians as well as non-Christians. They all realized that it was a sign made by Christ, the wonderworker:

They had the evidence of their own senses that the holy faith of Christians is not based on the persuasive arguments of philosophy but on the revelation of the spirit and power; it is not proclaimed by mere human beings but testified from heaven by God himself. (Cyr.Jer. Cons. 4) As stated by Cyril, Jesus the Christ, who worked wonders when he lived in Jerusalem, still works wonders in the city – thus confirming the spiritual importance of the city for Christians. As a result, Cyril and everyone else who saw the luminous cross have increased their worship of Christ and will continue to do so. Thus, Cyril is underlining the importance of Jerusalem as a place of worship – and thereby as a place of pilgrimage.

Cyril also underlines the importance of Jerusalem in his catechetical and mystagogical lectures. These were presented to the catechumens in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (also known as the Church of Resurrection), which was built by Constantine on the presumed site of Golgotha. In his lectures, Cyril often hints at the importance of this and other places in Palestine and Jerusalem. For example, in Cyr.Jer. Catech. 10.19 he lists persons and places that bear witness to the salvatory work of Christ, such as the place of Jesus’ manger, the river Jordan, the lake of Tiberias, the holy wood of the cross (Catech. 4.10 and 13.4 also refer to Golgotha as evidence for the truth of Jesus’ crucifixion), the Gethsemane Garden, the Mount of Olives, and not least Golgotha and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (a similar list is presented in Catech. 14.22–23). Cyril’s catechumens are thus instructed to be aware of the holy places that surround them in their daily life in Jerusalem, also, and not least, when they receive the catechetical instructions in the Church of the Resurrection. These holy places evoke the memory of Christ’s work and actualize it at the same time. Thus to Cyril, Jerusalem is not the place of the killing of Jesus, but of the life of Jesus – a life that by memory and new wonders is made present and thus important for his community. It is obvious that Jerusalem as a concrete city in this world plays an important role for Cyril. Jerusalem is thus of primary importance in the geographical and topological memory of (a fine introduction to Cyril’s ideas about Jerusalem as a geographical memory of Jesus, and therefore also as place of pilgrimage, is provided by Bitton-Ashkelony, 2005, 57–62; see also the important book by Drijvers, 2004, that interprets Cyril’s life and works in the context of his city, Jerusalem).

Writings

Cyril has only left a small corpus of writings to his posterity. We know of one letter written by him to Emperor Constantius, one sermon on The Paralytic at the Pool, some fragments of sermons, and a number of catechetical lectures. The catechetical lectures consist of one Procatechesis, 18 Prebaptismal Catecheses, and five Postbaptismal Catecheses – the so-called Mystagogic Catecheses (Doval, 2001, 1; Yarnold, 2000, 22–23). For centuries, it has been discussed whether Cyril is in fact the author of Mystagogic Catecheses. Four issues have been central in these discussions:

1. The manuscript tradition is ambiguous. Thus, some manuscripts indicate that John of Jerusalem – Cyril’s successor as bishop in Jerusalem – is the author of Mystagogic Catecheses. 2. The oldest layers of the literary tradition do not mention Mystagogic Catecheses. 3. From the perspective of the history of , some scholars have claimed that the liturgical theology of Mystagogic Catecheses is too developed to have been written in the time of Cyril. 4. It has been claimed that the styles of Catecheses illuminandorum and Mystagogic Catecheses are too different to allow for only one author (see Doval, 2001, 2–8; Yarnold, 2000, 23–25).

However, there are also a fair number of similarities in wording, style, and theology between the catecheses and the mystagogical lectures. Further, as E. Yarnold and A.J. Doval have argued, the mention in the manuscript of John as author of Mystagogic Catecheses does not in fact exclude Cyril as their author, and many of the differences between the catechetical and the mystagogical lectures can be ascribed to developments in Cyril’s theology from the beginning of his appointment as bishop around 350 CE, around which time he gave the catechetical lectures, to the end of his career in the CE, to which period the mystagogical lectures could well belong. Finally, A.J. Doval and E. Yarnold both provide convincing arguments in their explanation of the differences in literary form between the catechetical and mystagogical lectures. The catechetical lectures were written down by stenographers as Cyril extemporized them. He did this after preparing them, either by memorizing what he would say, or by writing notes on the basis of which he then spoke. According to E. Yarnold and A.J. Doval, the mystagogical lectures are in fact such notes written by Cyril during his preparation for the lectures, whereas the full lectures, which he presented on the basis of the notes, were not written down by stenographers. A strong argument for this suggestion is that the mystagogical lectures are much shorter than the catechetical lectures, and that the heading of the catechetical lectures states that they are extemporized which is not the case with the mystagogical lectures (Yarnold, 2000, 25–32; see Doval, 2001, 35–57, for the form of catechetical and mystagogical catechizing in Jerusalem, and 58–244, for a very detailed comparison between the catechetical and the mystagogical lectures). Both E. Yarnold and A.J. Doval thus reach the conclusion that Cyril is the author of both the catechetical and mystagogical lectures (Day, 2007 and 2011, claims that Cyril cannot be the author of the mystagogical lectures. J. Day’s arguments are not convincing, because, among other things, she does not realize the importance of the disciplina arcani (discipline of the secret) which prohibited Cyril from explaining the full ritual of in his catechetical lectures).

Baptismal

Cyril from Jerusalem composed his catechetical lectures for the preparation of the catechumens in Jerusalem around 351 CE (Doval, 1997, presents the history of research on the dating of Cyril’s catechetical lectures and reaches the conclusion that they were composed in 351 CE; Day, 2011, agrees with Doval). At that time, Cyril was bishop in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, founded by Constantine the Great (Eus. Vita Const. 3.25–40). Cyril gave the Procatechesis to the catechumens who, at the beginning of the Lent (Easter), had inscribed themselves for baptism, which would take place on Easter morning. In this lecture, he admonishes the catechumens to be serious about the preparation for baptism and about baptism itself. The candidates should make it absolutely clear to themselves whether they were ready to undergo baptism and to change their lives accordingly. If not, they should leave and return for baptism later when ready. Cyril thus tries to rouse the catechumens’ expectations as to what lies ahead: on the one hand, he threatens them with the consequences of being unserious; on the other, he lures them with promises of the bliss that awaits them if they undergo baptism with seriousness. Those of the inscribed catechumens who decided to continue would then be instructed through a number of catechetical lectures during the Lent, something Cyril accomplishes mainly by going through the paragraph by paragraph (thus, on the basis of these lectures and Cyril’s procedure, it has been possible to reconstruct the Jerusalem creed as it was in the mid-4th cent. CE; concerning the Jerusalem creed, see Mader, 54–55; Drijvers, 2004, 46–47). A total of 18 of these lectures have been preserved, which was probably also the number of lectures that he gave. Accordingly, either there would not be lectures every day during the Lent, or the period of Lent was shorter at Cyril’s time (concerning the development of the Lenten catechumenate, see Johnson, 1990 and 2007, 201–218. M.E. Johnson provides references to relevant literature).

In addition to the catechetical lectures, the baptismal preparation consisted of exorcisms, participation in ordinary services, fasts, and so on. During this period, the baptismal candidates were in a transitory stage between being catechumens and being believers (= those who are baptized). Hence, Cyril instructs the candidates not to tell the catechumens (= those who have not yet inscribed themselves for the intensive period of baptismal preparation) what they will learn during the process of preparation (see Cyr.Jer. Proc. 12 and Catech. 1.4; see Yarnold, 2000, 49–55, for the disciplina arcani). This clearly demonstrates that Cyril considered the period of baptismal preparation as a process of identity change and identity formation (I present a more detailed study on this subject in Jacobsen, 2014). After the preparation, the candidates would be baptized on Easter morning. In the week following their baptism, they would listen to the mystagogical lectures in which Cyril would explain the meaning of the that the newly baptized Christians had taken part in for the first time on Easter morning (see more in Yarnold, 2000, 33–39).

Theology

Cyril’s theology, as we know it from his catechetical and mystagogical lectures, is naturally influenced by the baptismal setting in which it was developed. Baptismal theology and liturgy thus play an important role (see below). However, baptismal catechesis was supposed to provide a basic and more general moral and doctrinal instruction as well. In these lectures, we therefore find an introduction to Christian doctrine in general. Already in the Procatechesis (10–11), Cyril introduces the doctrinal aspect of his catechetical instructions. First, he advises those inscribed for baptism not to be tired and not to be inattentive even if the bishop will speak for too long. The candidates will need the doctrinal teaching, with which they are provided, because it is their weapon against Greeks, heretics, Jews, and Samaritans who will attack their faith when they are baptized (Cyr.Jer. Proc. 10, see also Catech. 4.2). They are but given once, and if the candidates miss any of them, the result is like when trees are planted in the wrong season or in the wrong way: the result will be poor, and it cannot be changed. Likewise, the catechetical lectures are delivered in a certain sequence, and none of them can be missed; hence, the catechetical instruction is like building a house. The individual stones (= doctrinal elements) must be placed in the building in the correct order, and the corners must be even. Every part of the building must be in its right place and be fitted properly with other elements (Proc. 11). Cyril thus explains to the candidates that Christian doctrine is a coherent system in which all elements are necessary, related, and meaningful.

Cyril spends the first three catechetical lectures on introductory matters, such as describing the transitory process that the inscribed catechumens have now begun (Catech. 1), the necessity of repentance from the old way of life (Catech. 2), and a first introduction to what baptism is – still without revealing the ritual and the deeper theological meaning of baptism. This must be hidden from the candidates until after their baptism (Catech. 3). In the fourth lecture, Cyril initiates the doctrinal teaching that will be the topic of the remaining catechetical lectures (Catech. 4–18). In the fourth lecture, he presents a summary of the Christian doctrines that the candidates must learn during the Lent. According to Cyril, it is appropriate for the candidates to receive such an overview of the doctrines before he begins teaching them in details as this will make it easier to understand and remember them. In the summary, Cyril mentions the following themes: God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the consumption of meat, questions of clothing, resurrection of human beings, and the Bible.

In the next lecture (Catech. 5), Cyril speaks about faith. This lecture ends with the handing over of the symbol (traditio symboli), where Cyril would pass on the creed to the candidates by quoting it line by line. But before doing so, Cyril instructs the candidates about the nature of Christian faith. He obviously follows Paul in pointing to as the father of faith, but he also gives other examples, such as Mary’s faith, which was so strong that it could raise Lazarus from the dead (John 11:14–44). Afterward, Cyril explains that faith has two aspects: one is the faith in Christian doctrines, namely that they are true; the other is the faith given by Christ to the Christians that enables them to do and experience things that are normally above human abilities. Having explained faith in this way, Cyril quotes the creed and thereby hands it over to the catechumens. This would have been the first time the candidates heard the creed in its entirety. Finally, Cyril instructs his audience to learn it by heart and not to write it down. In the following lectures (Catech. 6–18), Cyril explains the elements of the creed in detail by giving one lecture on God the Father, another on Christ, and so on.

In Catech. 4, Cyril states about God the Father that he is one, unbegotten, without change, good and just at the same time, creator, not circumscribed by anything, has foreknowledge of all things that will happen, can do what he wills, and that he is the father of Christ. He develops this teaching further in Catech. 6, where the main themes are the unity of God the Father, the impossibility of humans to have complete knowledge of God the Father, and a critique of the Greeks’ and the heretics’ (i.e. Marcion and the Gnostics) ideas about God. The fatherhood of God is developed in Catech. 7, where Cyril states that God is father of Christ by nature and father of humans by adoption. In Catech. 8, Cyril explains what it means that God is almighty, and in Catech. 9 about what it means that he is creator.

Concerning Christ, Cyril says in Catech. 4 that he is the only son of God the Father, that he was born by a , died on the cross, was buried, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, and that he will be the future judge of humankind. These Christological statements are elaborated upon in the following lectures. In Catech. 7, where Cyril goes into detail on the theme of God’s fatherhood, he makes it clear that the relationship between God the Father and his son, Christ Jesus, is one of nature and not (only) one of honor. It is thus clear that Cyril belongs to the Nicene, not the Arian party. Catech. 10 is a kind of general introduction to Christology. In this lecture, Cyril uses the concept of Christ’s two natures to describe how Christ, the only son of God the Father, becomes human in order to be able to relate to humans as their creator and savior. In the following lectures, the statements about Christ in the creed’s second article are presented: in Catech. 11, Christ’s divinity, his eternity, and his function as creator are developed; Catech. 12 deals with Christ’s incarnation; Catech. 13 with his crucifixion and his burial; Catech. 14 with his resurrection and ascension; and Catech. 15 with Christ’s as judge.

According to Cyril, the Holy Spirit is also one and part of the . This is the firm standpoint of Cyril against a number of heretics who in different ways maintain other ideas about the Holy Spirit (Catech. 16). In Catech. 16 and 17, Cyril gives a number of examples from the Old and the New Testaments of the work of the Spirit: the Holy Spirit enlightens the , teaches, expels demons, inspired the confession of Christ, seals the souls in baptism, came upon Virgin Mary, came upon Christ at his baptism, inspired the apostles, and so on. In short, as stated by Cyril, the Holy Spirit is doing the triune God’s work in the world and among God’s people.

The last of the 18 catechetical lectures is dedicated to the final elements of the creed’s third article. In Cyril’s opinion, the resurrection of the dead plays a major role in Christian belief and life: without the belief in a future resurrection of the dead, nobody would dedicate their lives to fulfilling the moral restrictions of a proper Christian life. It is therefore of utmost importance for Cyril to defend the belief in the resurrection of the dead. In this endeavor, Cyril employs a number of well-known arguments for the resurrection of the dead, such as those related to nature: seeds decay in the earth, but sprout again in spring (see Paul in 1 Cor 15); flies seem to drown, but come to life again; the moon almost disappears, but grows to full size again; and so on. He also uses arguments from the Bible, for example Jesus resurrecting Lazarus, or prophets who brought dead people back to life. The basic argument behind these examples is that God, who created humans and all other living beings out of nothing, is also able to bring what is dead back to life again. For Cyril, the resurrection of the dead also guarantees justice: if there is no life after this, God is unjust because justice is not found in this life. Therefore, the final judgment – reward or punishment, respectively – is connected to the bodily resurrection.

Finally, Cyril defines the Church as the church that is spread all over the world and in which all necessary teachings are taught. As Cyril stresses, this church should not be confused with the many heretical churches that also exist.

Baptismal Theology

Being catecheses, Cyril’s texts are closely connected to baptism. One consequence of this is that Cyril, as we have seen above, gives a general introduction to Christian life and belief. Another consequence is that baptismal theology and liturgy play a dominating role in his catecheses. This specific theme must therefore be addressed separately. Cyril’s theology of baptism is presented in the Procatechesis, the third catechetical lecture, and in the three first mystagogical lectures. In Cyril’s mind, the background for humans’ need of baptism is their sinfulness, which is a consequence of their misuse of their free will and of the Devil’s constant attempt to lead people astray (Catech. 2). Cyril thus exhorts the baptismal candidates to repent and stop sinning, to make their paths straight, and to make themselves ready for the wedding party (Matt 22:1–14; see Catech. 3.1–2). In Catech. 3, and his baptizing activity are the focal point of Cyril’s explanations even though the heading of the lecture quotes Rom 6:3–4. The first references to John the Baptist in Catech. 3.1–2 are followed by long and detailed references to John the Baptist and his work in Catech. 3.6–9.11. The focus of these passages is repentance, cleansing, and leaving the old behind. John the Baptist is symbolizing the shift from the old to the new – the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament (Catech. 3.6). Jesus’ own baptism by John in Jordan initiates the new covenant (Catech. 3.11). Sanctifying baptism by being baptized himself, Jesus also transforms the old meaning of baptism from being only a baptism of repentance to also being a baptism that leads to participation in Christ and his grace (Catech. 3.11). Having pointed to this transformation of the meaning of baptism, Cyril naturally continues with a short reference to Rom 6:1–11, which interprets baptism as death and resurrection with Christ (Catech. 3.12). It is striking that Cyril’s main focus in Catech. 3 is John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance and not Rom 6:1–11 with its focus on baptism as death and resurrection with Christ. The most probable explanation of this is that Cyril in his catechetical lectures wishes to focus on the candidates’ repentance from their old ways of life and not on their new life after baptism. This fits with the observation that Catech. 3 follows Catech. 2, which is about repentance.

Cyril further explains in Catech. 3 that when the baptismal candidates are baptized, both their souls and their bodies will be cleansed because the water in the baptismal font is not ordinary water, but water that has received the Holy Spirit by invocation. Thus, a person must be reborn by water and by spirit (Mark 1:1–4; Catech. 3.4). This explanation in Catech. 3.3–5 seems to be somewhat different from what we find in the rituals described in Cyr.Jer. Myst. 2 and 3. In these, the cleansing in the water seems to take place in baptism itself while the reception of the Holy Spirit seems to be a result of the anointing with the exorcized oil that follows the baptism. This difference is probably due to Cyril’s focus on repentance in Catech. 3 and to the fact that he does not explain the rituals before baptism. It can, however, also be a sign of different layers in the tradition or even of different authors of Catecheses illuminandorum and Mystagogic Catecheses.

Baptismal Liturgy

The baptismal rituals are described in Cyr.Jer. Myst. 1–3. Here, Cyril presents repentance and new life as the meaning of baptism. In the beginning of the baptismal liturgy, the baptismal candidates enter the outer room of the baptistery. Here, they turn their faces to the west (the place of darkness) and renounce the Devil and his works and pomp (Myst. 1.1–8). The Devil’s influence is the reason why people attend pagan festivals, visit theatres, watch horse racing, and so on, and such behavior must be avoided at all costs. This part of the ritual is meaningfully related to Catech. 2 and 3, which call the baptismal candidates to repentance and describe baptism as an act of repentance. Then, the candidates turn to the east and declaim a very short version of the creed: “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and in one baptism of repentance” (Myst. 1.9). Afterward, the candidates are led into the baptistery (Myst. 1.11; 2.1). Here, the candidates first take off their clothes. This symbolizes that they strip themselves of the “old man.” This is also done in imitation of Christ, who was stripped naked at the cross, and of , who was naked in the Garden of Eden before he sinned. Thus, the baptismal candidates were baptized naked, something they did without being ashamed, as Cyril underlines (Myst. 2.2). The naked candidates are then anointed with exorcized oil all over the body. This anointing symbolizes participation in the godly olive tree – Christ – and repels hostile powers. This points forward to the new life after baptism (Myst. 2.3). After their anointing, the candidates are led to the baptismal basin – just as Christ was carried from the cross to the holy sepulcher, “which you see in front of you,” Cyril says (Myst. 2.4). Before being baptized, the candidates are asked again whether they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. After having confirmed this, the candidates are baptized by being immersed three times in the water. This exemplifies in a very short and concise manner how Cyril understood baptism – as dying, being buried, and rising again together with Christ; see Rom 6:11 (Myst. 2.4–8). According to Cyril, this means that the Christians will partake both in Christ’s grace and in his sufferings (Myst. 2.5–7). The ritual ends with another anointing, which transfers the Holy Spirit to the baptized. Also here, Cyril offers a parallel to Jesus’ baptism by John in Jordan saying that just as Christ received the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove after his baptism, the baptized Christians receive the Holy Spirit by the act of anointing (Myst. 3). This seems to indicate a distinction between the baptism in water, which is an act of cleansing and rising to a new life, and the following anointing that confers the Holy Spirit on the newly baptized. As the baptism in water signals cleansing from previous sins and a new life in Christ, the anointing means receiving the Holy Spirit that will guide the recently baptized in their new life and make the new holy life possible for them by protecting them from sin and the devil (Myst. 3, see also Yarnold, 2000, 39–40). Having now received baptism, the newborn Christians were led from the baptistery into the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where the congregation was waiting for them. Now, they could partake in the .

Reception

Cyril’s work has been quite important for later traditions, mainly because he provides his readers with a unique insight into baptismal theology, catechesis, and liturgy of the Jerusalem church in the 4th century CE. In fact, were it not for his catecheses, scholars would not have been able to reconstruct the Jerusalem creed. Since we have very few similar sources on these subjects, Cyril’s work has played a major role in the study of the history of doctrine and liturgy in the 4th-century CE church.

Historiography

Cyril was not a prominent figure in the early modern studies of church history and history of theology. This can be seen for example in A. von Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte (vol. II, 1909) where Cyril figures briefly in the chapter called “Die Mysterien und Vervandtes.” Editions of Cyrils works were published by W.K. Reischl and J. Rupp (1848/1860), and by J.P. Migne (PG 31, 331–1180). In the 20th century only parts of Cyril’s works were re-edited in modern editions. An English translation of all Cyrils works was published in 1969 (McCauley & Stephenson). A biography was published by J. Mader (1891).

In the last part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, a new interest in Cyril arose. This interest has concentrated around questions such as Cyril and Jerusalem (Drijvers, 2004), Cyril’s baptismal theology and ritual (Day, 2007; 2011), the role of catechesis (Jacobsen, 2014; Johnson, 2007), and the authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses (Doval, 2001).

Bitton-Ashkelony, B., Encountering the Sacred: The Debate on Christian Pilgrimage in Late Antiquity, TCHS 38, Berkeley, 2005. Cross, F.L., & R.W. Church, eds. and trans., St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments: The Procatechesis and the Five Mystagogical Catheceses, London, 1951.

Day, J., The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem: 4th and 5th Century Evidence in Jerusalem, Egypt and Syria, Aldershot, 2007.

Day, J., “The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem: A Source for the Baptismal Liturgy of Mid-Fourth Century Jerusalem,” in: D. Hellholm et al., eds., Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, BZNW 176, Berlin, 2011, 1179–1204.

Doval, A.J., “The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catecheses,” JThS 48, 1997, 129–132.

Doval, A.J., Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagoge: The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses, Washington DC, 2001.

Drijvers, J.W., Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City, Leiden, 2004.

Harnack, A. von, Dogmengeschichte, vol. II, Tübingen, 41909, 469–460.

Jacobsen, A.-C., “Identity Formation through Catechetical Teaching in Early Christianity,” in: B. Bøgh, ed., Conversion and Initiation in Antiquity: Shifting Identities–Creating Change, ECCA 16, Frankfurt am Main, 2014, 203–224.

Johnson, M.E., “From Three Weeks to Forty Days: Baptismal Preparation and the Origen of Lent,” StLi 20, 1990, 185–200.

Johnson, M.E., The Rite of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation, Collegeville, 22007.

Mader, J., Der heilige Cyrillus, Bishof von Jerusalem, in seinem Leben und Schriften nach den Quellen dargestellt, Einsiedeln, 1891.

McCauley, L.P., & A.A Stephenson, eds. & trans., The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, FaCh 61 & 64, Washington, DC, 1969, ET of the Procatechesis, the Catechetical Lectures, the Mystagogical Lectures, the Sermon on the Paralytic, and the Letter to Constantius.

Nuffelen, P. van, “The Career of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 348–87): A Reassessment,” JThS 58, 2007, 134–146.

Reischl, W.K., & J. Rupp, eds., Cyrilli Hierosolymarum Archiepiscopi Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, vols. I–II, Munich, 1848/1860.

Yarnold, E., Cyril of Jerusalem, London, 2000.